Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2759 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Attachments approved.

This is something I have seen before and DWF are claiming for security costs. When a Retailer (can't name them) took a case to court in 2012 with RLP, the issue of security costs were brought up.

It was one (of many) that was fatal to their claim as the security costs had already been factored into the costs the store faced and the price of the goods in store included a small amount to cover those costs.

The store security company were already paid to deter crime, detain suspected shoplifters, monitor the store via walkabouts or CCTV and investigate any shoplifting event.

Had a member of store staff NOT associated with security assisted in any detention which took them 'away from their normal duties' (i.e. cashier) then those costs could be recovered but only those costs. The store could not gain a profit as that would be called betterment.

 

So, that long winded reply is basically saying they haven't a leg to stand on nor would this case be likely to end up in a county court.

 

There will be more letters but unless a letter arrives stating Letter Before Action/Claim or court papers then there is nothing to worry about.

These companies dish out their own special versions of rubbish.

 

IGNORE!!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't see any need to send them a letter? Would it be a bad thing to do?

 

I'd really just like the phonecalls to stop (so far there's only been 1 but the day is still young). I know it's like the car park penalty letters, but with the car parking thing I would be happy to wait it out , and have no concerns with my work/family finding out about it, but this is different.

 

I was thinking of something along the lines of:

 

...While shopping in Asda that day I was accused of a crime, which I denied. When the police arrived they confirmed that I had committed no crime and I was allowed to leave. Apart from the attending police officers, the only members of security staff I encountered were regular staff I'd seen working there previously, and presumably would have been paid regardless of my visit to the store, therefore I do not understand what extra costs you claim "occurred at the time of the incident". In any case I was accused of a crime which I did not commit and therefore deny any liability to you or your clients.

 

I have "met" a friend of a friend online who had a similar letter from another supermarket (different but similar sort of accusation) and they sent a letter basically saying what I've put above and then that was the last of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could send a letter. Firstly, I would demand that they remove your phone number from their database and deal with this matter in writing only.

 

I would then state;

" As police officers were in attendance and confirmed that no crime had been committed, I deny any liability to you or your client. I am also fully aware of the case in 2012 where a retailer lost a similar claim in court and while not a precedent, would be raised in court should you continue with this fruitless action."

 

"As no crime has been committed, your letters are tantamount to harassment and the excuse that you are only following your client's instruction will not stand. Should I have need to complain about your actions to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority I will raise this issue with them.

 

" Any further letters will be acknowledged but not responded to. Should you continue with this matter, I will have to charge for my time at the prevailing rates."

 

You could do that or adjust your own to fit. You don't need to mention Asda at all or the fact you were shopping.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

letters merged and rotated..

 

 

I like the way they say that a retailer gets nothing fron if your are fined so this iswhy we do civil recovery..

 

 

...urm its already been proved that the retailer gets bugger all out of these charges too!!

they don't see a penny!

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oxford case kills the pig for DWF makes any action pointless.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this will sound odd to some but I woke this morning thinking of this thread :|

 

I notice that DWF are only claiming security costs however, if Asda security had deemed your use of the vouchers to be fraudulent then why did they not add them to the amount claimed?

 

No crime committed.

No value demanded

Can't claim security costs

No due diligence by DWF

 

They have no proof any alleged crime has been committed so they are claiming security costs on spurious grounds therefore (IMO) they must be in breach of the SRA codes of practice.

 

If they wish to continue with this, they must go back to Asda and get the proof (of which there will be none)

 

It beggars belief that any solicitor will lower themselves to gutter standards in the hope of a quick buck!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no credible claim here, just the usual Civil Enforcement MO of threats and coercion, they have no more grounds for court here, than they have to sue me when I get that invoice from them shortly for Security investigating the incident a couple of days ago when a codger ran into me in an Asda on a scobility mooter (sorry had to Spoonerise it)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a wee update to let you know...

I sent the letter using the phrases Silver Fox posted above nearly 2 weeks ago, and have heard nothing from them since.

(I did get a 3rd letter reiterating the first 2 and saying they'd "consider" legal action unless I paid,

but it came the next day so will have crossed in the post.)

 

 

Hopefully that's the last I'll hear, and I just wanted to say thank you again for your help.

 

Would it be helpful for you to see the 3rd letter?

TBH it's just the same but with added court "threat"

but I think I read somewhere that you are not that familiar with the supermarket/Dwf procedure, time frame etc.

 

For me the time frame worked like this:

just over a week after the incident I received the first letter (dated 3 days previously - rolls eyes),

then exactly 7 days later the 2nd (same 3 day lag).

The 3rd came 8 days later but I assume this was BH post related as the date on the letter was 7 days after the 2nd.

 

1 letter every week until I replied to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As good as it may seem now, I suspect that this isn't the end of it but I can be hopeful.

 

You have made it clear and if they continue with chasing you would report them for harassment. They may not want to risk a complaint to the SRA for harassment as the 'we were only following our clients instruction' doesn't wash as they being solicitors have a duty to act according to the law.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...